LaserGuy wrote:What's the purpose of open carry, exactly? The United States is basically the only country in the world that allows this under any circumstance.

It depends, culturally. It's a lot more accepted in rural areas. Going into a place to eat during hunting season with your rifle slung over your shoulder is acceptable in some areas. Not really treated differently than a tradesman having a toolbelt on.

It's usually not considered normal in urban areas. Some rural areas also frown on it. Depends on area and context. In some areas, a jumpy cop might use it as an excuse to put a bullet in you, depending.

Mostly, it depends on if it's something the regional culture thinks needs to be hidden.

Alas, that fails to explain the function or purpose of open carry, it just claims that doing so is accepted in some parts of the US. As far as I can tell, it’s main purpose is to show off that you are carrying a gun around with you everywhere. I suppose it was at one point supposed to intimidate those around you who might otherwise have thought you were a juicy target.

Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

And, yet, Concealed Carry is claimed to grant (like a Herd Immunity) safety across the board because <random_victim> or <random_passerby> might be carrying a weapon, if that sort of thing might deter your own extralegal entrepreneurial taxation-by-threat plan, meaning you don't just need to stay away from people with holstered/slung guns in choosing your target and moment to act.

PAstrychef wrote:Alas, that fails to explain the function or purpose of open carry...

Open carry is a form of right or permission. It is similar to the right (or permission) to openly carry a laptop or a power tool or a beer or a can of gasoline. The right (or permission) to carry something is fairly basic.

The question would be: why should the open carrying of {particular thing} be prohibited? Because in the absence of good reasons to prohibit something, it should be permitted.

When such reasons are given, we can discuss them.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

ucim wrote:The question would be: why should the open carrying of {particular thing} be prohibited? Because in the absence of good reasons to prohibit something, it should be permitted.

For one thing, because this particular thing is often used for intimidation and quieting of other people, particularly marginalized people and anyone who doesn't vocally agree with the person carrying the gun. Does this really need explanation on why it's a bad idea?

PAstrychef wrote:Alas, that fails to explain the function or purpose of open carry, it just claims that doing so is accepted in some parts of the US. As far as I can tell, it’s main purpose is to show off that you are carrying a gun around with you everywhere. I suppose it was at one point supposed to intimidate those around you who might otherwise have thought you were a juicy target.

It's hard to conceal a rifle or shotgun. So, it's a matter of practicality in many cases. After all, you are open carrying while hunting.

If you're riding the subway, justifying it as a matter of practicality is rather different than while hunting, though. Legality aside, there are times and places where doing so isn't going to bother anyone, and times where it's maybe not appropriate. Intimidation isn't a good reason, of course.

As an aside, had a state senator do a thing a coupla years back in which he carried a rifle openly in MD, with folks filming the results. Police were somewhat alarmed in some cases, but...ultimately, he was an old white dude with a lot of political power. He was in no danger, and the police were quite friendly and polite with him. He invited anyone present(this was viewed in senate deliberations) to contend that the same reaction would be given to minorities doing the same thing. None of the other senators took him up on it. Open carry is theoretically legal in MD, but in practice, ehhhhh. So, there's a seriously problematic aspect to how open carry is treated. It's a completely legal thing that police feel justified in executing minorities for doing.

addams wrote:Anyone arguing against Registration, Education and Safe Storage are arguing in Bad Faith or Trolls.

Period.End of Story.

Not in the slightest. Registration is often argued against, and is a mainstream position.

Pretty much everyone is a fan of education and safe storage. There are concerns that legislation on these can be used to quash legitimate usage, though. And I'd personally like to not be required to buy two locks for every pistol, particularly when I'm going to just drop them in the pile of unused locks, and put the gun in a safe.

reval wrote:Yes, many states have training requirements for carrying and using firearms, and it is important to distinguish that from ownership requirements.

I wouldn't be opposed to required training to own; and then additional required training to carry. Of course, it would need to be operated in good faith - no slow-rolling the process as an indirect means of stopping people from owning or carrying firearms.

For example, in Minnesota a permit to carry a firearm in public requires training and qualification. Similarly, getting a hunting license requires hunter safety training (except for people born before 1980 who are grandfathered - I guess back then people were born already knowing about gun safety?) So in practice the only place you can have a gun without training is at your home or business, at a range, or in transit, unloaded and in a closed case.

Not unreasonable.

The only part of this that bothers me is when "training" gets downgraded to "watching a video", which I don't consider training. I want to hold the line at in-person training with real live teachers. This is serious stuff and deserves serious training.

Agreed. Training should be with a live, qualified instructor, and should include proving that you've absorbed the material.

You should be able to demonstrate that you can clean, load, and unload the weapon in a safe manner. You should be able to answer questions about the applicable laws in your state and community. And you should be able to demonstrate that you can fire the weapon in a safe manner; and that you're aware of the basic safety measures that are involved. You should know how to properly store the weapon and ammunition, etc.

PAstrychef wrote:Alas, that fails to explain the function or purpose of open carry, it just claims that doing so is accepted in some parts of the US. As far as I can tell, it’s main purpose is to show off that you are carrying a gun around with you everywhere. I suppose it was at one point supposed to intimidate those around you who might otherwise have thought you were a juicy target.

Arguments for open carry typically involve accessibility; it's just a lot faster and easier to get to the weapon if you really need it. Deterrence is another common argument; the idea being that an attacker is less likely to assault someone who is obviously armed.

cphite wrote:I wouldn't be opposed to required training to own; and then additional required training to carry. Of course, it would need to be operated in good faith - no slow-rolling the process as an indirect means of stopping people from owning or carrying firearms.

I agree; the problem is in the "good faith" part, because the fundamental reason that people should be able to own firearms is that it's the last ditch defense against tyranny.

I'd propose that the training agency be independent of government, and apolitical. Keeping it that way is the hard part - it's a "who watches the watchers" problem no matter where it is.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

cphite wrote:I wouldn't be opposed to required training to own; and then additional required training to carry. Of course, it would need to be operated in good faith - no slow-rolling the process as an indirect means of stopping people from owning or carrying firearms.

I agree; the problem is in the "good faith" part, because the fundamental reason that people should be able to own firearms is that it's the last ditch defense against tyranny.

I'd propose that the training agency be independent of government, and apolitical. Keeping it that way is the hard part - it's a "who watches the watchers" problem no matter where it is.

Good points.

The NRA has training programs; and there would certainly be other organizations willing to provide training for a fee.

But, in addition to being independent - it needs to actually be valuable. People should actually learn something useful and be able to apply it. There should be reasonable standards for what constitutes an acceptable curriculum. If it's just "watch these videos" or "sit through these lectures" there isn't any point.

Tyndmyr wrote:The NRA has a separate arm for politics rather than training. Is that sufficient for your purposes?

Probably, though it should have a different name. The mandatory training institution should be completely insulated from political pressure, and should also appear completely insulated from it.

And yes, real training, aimed at safety, competence, and respect for the power over life and death that a gun gives you. Nothing wrong with videos as part of the training (just look at the threeblueonebrown youtube channel - awesome presentation of high end math topics), but many things require hands-on training with a real live person.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Firearms should be treated like drugs - legalize use and possession, but have rules for harm and conflict reduction. This may mean we don't allow people to smoke marijuana in public spaces in urban environments. This may mean we don't allow people to openly carry weapons, which is not only disruptive but automatically puts someone in a possession of power due to the potential threat it carries.

Tyndmyr wrote:The NRA has a separate arm for politics rather than training. Is that sufficient for your purposes?

Probably, though it should have a different name. The mandatory training institution should be completely insulated from political pressure, and should also appear completely insulated from it.

And yes, real training, aimed at safety, competence, and respect for the power over life and death that a gun gives you. Nothing wrong with videos as part of the training (just look at the threeblueonebrown youtube channel - awesome presentation of high end math topics), but many things require hands-on training with a real live person.

Jose

NRA-ILA's the legislative branch. Semi-different name. The training has been under the main NRA name for basically forever. I suspect the NRA simply can't keep the two distinct in the public eye. Even though the training courses are not political, perception is going to greatly blur the two. Anti-gun advocates appear to dislike the NRA as a whole, and do not make the distinction between the lobbying arm and the rest.

Harm and conflict resolution laws largely exist. Open carry is hard to ban entirely. Doing so would be really strange for hunting, etc. Use for intimidation or coercion ought to be illegal, of course, but it's challenging to think of a way to legislate that without giving police a means to heavily discriminate against minorities. That's already a severe problem with firearms.

Tyndmyr wrote:The NRA has a separate arm for politics rather than training. Is that sufficient for your purposes?

Probably, though it should have a different name. The mandatory training institution should be completely insulated from political pressure, and should also appear completely insulated from it.

Not sure I like the idea of any single institution; I'd rather there be standards that any institution that wants to teach these courses would have to meet. I'm not at all opposed to the NRA being involved; they're a known organization and they have an excellent track record in regards to training.

And yes, real training, aimed at safety, competence, and respect for the power over life and death that a gun gives you.

Yes. A lot of the problems with current training is that all too often there is way too much focus on shooting, and way to little focus on things like loading, clearing, and cleaning a weapon. Far too many people hurt themselves while cleaning a weapon they haven't cleared properly; or trying to clear a weapon and doing it wrong. And way too often, safety is merely talked about as sort of a checklist of things not to do; it needs to really be emphasized and tested.

Nothing wrong with videos as part of the training (just look at the threeblueonebrown youtube channel - awesome presentation of high end math topics), but many things require hands-on training with a real live person.

Video is fine as a tool; the problem is when it's the only tool used. Learning to properly handle a firearm requires some actual hands-on time properly handling a firearm.

cphite wrote:Not sure I like the idea of any single institution; I'd rather there be standards that any institution that wants to teach these courses would have to meet. I'm not at all opposed to the NRA being involved; they're a known organization and they have an excellent track record in regards to training.

That does seem better, yes. The government shouldn't be forcing the use of a single private organization. Covering, say, safe usage and storage, as well as hands on demonstration with a blue gun would work. (A "blue gun" is a non-firing replica used for training purposes). Perhaps a basic marksmanship component.

Tyndmyr wrote:Even though the training courses are not political, perception is going to greatly blur the two.

Not just perception; putting (a branch of) the NRA in charge of (or closely linked to) licensing makes it political.

cphite wrote:Not sure I like the idea of any single institution; I'd rather there be standards that any institution that wants to teach these courses would have to meet.

I agree wholeheartedly. Good point.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

addams wrote:My instructors were Good!They were accredited by the State to teach.

I would disagree that state instruction is best for firearms. Even police training is often not great. Military...hit and miss. Sure, you have your special forces stuff, which is pretty cool, but on the flip side, air force handguns qualification is a web based training that you click through. No actual firearm touched or in person instruction. Strictly inferior to almost all civilian training.

You may get some good ones, but it's an area in which government is not necessarily superior.

Quick class every, ...umm..Two years when you re-register your Guns.Yeah. One year or two years...Every two years makes it easy to forget.

Okay, registration is undesirable, but if we had a registration schema why would we re-register them?

The kind of "anarchy" that liberated us from the British king two hundred or so years ago. And this is not incompatible with Provable Personal Responsibility; that's a false dichotomy. We just have to be careful that "provable" doesn't become "agent of suppression".

addams wrote:If you do a Back Flip, drop your gun and shoot me, you can be covered for that.

Is this a clever way for a hitman to get paid and reimbursed for a hit? Maybe there's a market for acrobatic hit men. Couple this with reality TV and our present administration and there could be endless bread and circuses~

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Firearm-specific insurance is another way to cost-gate firearm ownership.

Firearm accidents are not terribly common. If you do injure someone through negligence, yes, you're liable, but a gun isn't special here. Accidentally injuring someone due to firearm stupidity isn't different than doing it any other way.

The only time we make an individual carry specific liability insurance is for vehicles. It's necessary there only because vehicle accidents are ludicrously common. Firearm-specific liability insurance makes no more sense than swimming pool-specific liability insurance.

Bear in mind that many (general) insurance policies exclude specific perils, such as aviation, swimming pools, and firearms. In some cases you can't even buy a rider for it.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

The kind of "anarchy" that liberated us from the British king two hundred or so years ago. And this is not incompatible with Provable Personal Responsibility; that's a false dichotomy. We just have to be careful that "provable" doesn't become "agent of suppression".

addams wrote:If you do a Back Flip, drop your gun and shoot me, you can be covered for that.

Is this a clever way for a hitman to get paid and reimbursed for a hit? Maybe there's a market for acrobatic hit men. Couple this with reality TV and our present administration and there could be endless bread and circuses~

PAstrychef wrote:Alas, that fails to explain the function or purpose of open carry, it just claims that doing so is accepted in some parts of the US. As far as I can tell, it’s main purpose is to show off that you are carrying a gun around with you everywhere. I suppose it was at one point supposed to intimidate those around you who might otherwise have thought you were a juicy target.

It's hard to conceal a rifle or shotgun. So, it's a matter of practicality in many cases. After all, you are open carrying while hunting.

Even countries that don't have open carry (i.e. just about all of them) usually have special rules for firearm usage while hunting. This is more what I was referring to:

Spoiler:

(As a parent of two precocious toddlers, I find some of these images deeply alarming as there doesn't appear to be anything restraining the handguns in a lot the holsters people seem to use, which means that one of my kids could probably steal one of those guns in all of three seconds)

I'm struggling to see the point of this beyond 1) political statement or 2) explicit threat of violence to everyone around you.

Convenience remains a factor. In some rural areas, it's not different from having a hammer in your toolbelt. Easy way to carry it while going in and grabbing whatever, even if there's no intent to use it there. Rifle racks in trucks are similar. In some areas, having firearms is particularly normal.

And, I suppose, for self defense, it is an option. Albeit a fairly rarely exercised one, because carrying a rifle like that is usually a good deal less convenient than a handgun. The second image is probably more likely a self defense carry than the first.

But sometimes, yes, it's one of those two. The political statement sometimes makes sense(though sometimes I feel it's an unnecessarily confrontational/stupid way of making a point. Depends on the specific protest). Sometimes people just want to be dicks and intimidate others. The latter are troublesome if they have the smarts to verbally masquerade as the former.

For the more legitimate political statements, the open carry/BLM movements have some overlap in protesting police brutality. Open carry folks have a huge problem with people being shot merely because "we thought we saw a gun", because, yknow, having a gun isn't actually a crime. Some anti-open carry laws are explicitly pretty racist, such as the 1967 CA law that was passed as a reaction to a Black Panther demonstration.

There's also, of course, the folks that simply don't want a gun to be seen as shameful, or something that needs to be hidden.

Given that most of the open/concealed carry advocates tend to also be the type of people who are more likely to pull a gun and look for ways to be a hero, a la George Zimmerman, and that they are also the most likely to support the death penalty and harsh punishment for minor crimes, I'd say that they are most certainly not overlapping movements. In fact, they seem to be made up of people in direct opposition.

I suspect that the vast majority of people who carry openly are far more likely to pull it on an unarmed black man they suspect of being scary than use it to protect them from the police. It's just more people wearing more symbols that indicate to black people that their lives are potentially in immediate danger.

One movement is about criminal justice, the other is about deterrence and punishment. The opposition to police in one instance is about oppression, the opposition to police in the other is about property rights and the freedom to use that property to discriminate.

Thesh wrote:Given that most of the open/concealed carry advocates tend to also be the type of people who are more likely to pull a gun and look for ways to be a hero, a la George Zimmerman, and that they are also the most likely to support the death penalty and harsh punishment for minor crimes, I'd say that they are most certainly not overlapping movements. In fact, they seem to be made up of people in direct opposition.

There are routine demonstrations of those who are both, so, yes they definitely are. Google "black open carry demonstration" or similar, and you'll get a variety of instances.

I suspect that the vast majority of people who carry openly are far more likely to pull it on an unarmed black man they suspect of being scary than use it to protect them from the police. It's just more people wearing more symbols that indicate to black people that their lives are potentially in immediate danger.

The point is that, generally speaking, if there are thirty black guys with guns in a protest, police somehow don't intervene. But if it's one guy carrying a cell phone, they shoot the crap out of him.

It's not so much about legitimate fear on the part of police as it is about overt racism, and a right of self defense.

One movement is about criminal justice, the other is about deterrence and punishment. The opposition to police in one instance is about oppression, the opposition to police in the other is about property rights and the freedom to use that property to discriminate.

You have a strange viewpoint. The opposition to police isn't about only property rights, and most second amendment advocates would hold that the second amendment is about far more than just property rights. Self defense is an extremely strong part of firearm rights arguments, and the right to self defense is highly connected to the gun rights argument in general.

Now, sure, maybe not every gun advocate is a shining example of equality, but both black and white gun owners want exactly the same things, and the blatant racism of gun control history is pretty commonly accepted to be a bad thing by gun advocates, and it's used extremely commonly to tar such efforts.

Tyndmyr wrote:You have a strange viewpoint. The opposition to police isn't about only property rights, and most second amendment advocates would hold that the second amendment is about far more than just property rights. Self defense is an extremely strong part of firearm rights arguments, and the right to self defense is highly connected to the gun rights argument in general.

The views that conservatives have about guns revolve heavily around the idea of using a firearm to protect against theft of personal property rather than physical violence. Their anti-government views are views that the government should not be able to tell property owners not to pollute or discriminate, and equate tyranny with taxation more than any actual notions of injustice. They see the guns as being tools to enforce the status quo, in which most black people are in poverty, because if the government comes and takes their property away then that demands war.

They don't care, at all, and will defend 100% of the time the police when the police shoot an unarmed black man. Yes, they might change tune when they shoot a black man who is legally carrying a firearm, but when they are unarmed or illegally armed then the vast majority of open carry advocates are 100% behind the police.

So please don't pretend that these movements have anything in common, beyond some vague anti-police sentiment. The point is that their actual views about things like right and wrong, and their actual motives matter more than anything if you want to say that two movements have common ground. At most there are things they don't disagree on, but for completely different reasons.

Tyndmyr wrote:Convenience remains a factor. In some rural areas, it's not different from having a hammer in your toolbelt. Easy way to carry it while going in and grabbing whatever, even if there's no intent to use it there. Rifle racks in trucks are similar. In some areas, having firearms is particularly normal.

Open carry is preferable in rural areas because the primary reason for carrying at all is self-defense, and if you need something out in the wilderness it tends to be a "need it right this instant" sort of situation. As for other people seeing it... I guess it depends on the location but in the places where I've carried openly it's really not even a thing people notice. The only questions I've ever gotten were queries on make and model.

And, I suppose, for self defense, it is an option. Albeit a fairly rarely exercised one, because carrying a rifle like that is usually a good deal less convenient than a handgun. The second image is probably more likely a self defense carry than the first.

Carrying a rifle openly in any sort of public setting is a political statement. It's not necessarily intended to be "threatening" as some folks might assume; it's generally more about demonstrating that, yeah, this is a fundamental right and we're exercising it.

cphite wrote:Carrying a rifle openly in any sort of public setting is a political statement. It's not necessarily intended to be "threatening" as some folks might assume; it's generally more about demonstrating that, yeah, this is a fundamental right and we're exercising it.

It may not be intended to be threatening, but that doesn't mean that people don't (and shouldn't) interpret it as a threat. Especially since this type of behaviour is routinelyusedasathreat in all kinds of different settings (caution: TvTropes).

This is especially true since you basically need to assume that anyone carrying a gun is 1) mentally unsound and could use it at any provocation (since background checks aren't being done) and 2) has no idea how to handle it safely and could discharge it accidentally (since training isn't mandatory). This obviously isn't true of most gun owners, but you can't take the risk that it is of the one you happen to be dealing with.

I've carried my assault rifle into a supermarket for the simple reason that it seemed safer than leaving it with the motorcycle. I was on my way to the range and wanted to buy something to drink. No nefarious purpose whatsoever.

cphite wrote:Carrying a rifle openly in any sort of public setting is a political statement. It's not necessarily intended to be "threatening" as some folks might assume; it's generally more about demonstrating that, yeah, this is a fundamental right and we're exercising it.

It may not be intended to be threatening, but that doesn't mean that people don't (and shouldn't) interpret it as a threat. Especially since this type of behaviour is routinelyusedasathreat in all kinds of different settings (caution: TvTropes).

This is especially true since you basically need to assume that anyone carrying a gun is 1) mentally unsound and could use it at any provocation (since background checks aren't being done) and 2) has no idea how to handle it safely and could discharge it accidentally (since training isn't mandatory). This obviously isn't true of most gun owners, but you can't take the risk that it is of the one you happen to be dealing with.

If I see someone openly carrying a firearm and behaving in a responsible, reasonable manner - I assume that they're a responsible, reasonable person who just happens to be carrying a firearm. I do take note of the fact that they're carrying - that's just good practice - but it really doesn't concern me unless they're behaving in a manner that concerns me. I do the same thing with knives, or anything that could be used as a weapon.

cphite wrote:Carrying a rifle openly in any sort of public setting is a political statement. It's not necessarily intended to be "threatening" as some folks might assume; it's generally more about demonstrating that, yeah, this is a fundamental right and we're exercising it.

It may not be intended to be threatening, but that doesn't mean that people don't (and shouldn't) interpret it as a threat. Especially since this type of behaviour is routinelyusedasathreat in all kinds of different settings (caution: TvTropes).

The government does use overt shows of force as a threat. Individuals are checked by government force, and therefore, are at much lower risk, particularly when doing a demonstration(police are often right there if someone goes too far). The guy demonstrating for a legal change isn't likely to ignore the law. He still cares about what the law is.

People who don't care about the law, or feel themselves above it are far more concerning. Police without effective checks and balances. Military in the hands of a poor leader. Organized crime.

If something is not intended as a threat, and does not actually pose a threat, you probably ought not interpret it as one.

This is especially true since you basically need to assume that anyone carrying a gun is 1) mentally unsound and could use it at any provocation (since background checks aren't being done) and 2) has no idea how to handle it safely and could discharge it accidentally (since training isn't mandatory). This obviously isn't true of most gun owners, but you can't take the risk that it is of the one you happen to be dealing with.

Mental health is on the check when you purchase a firearm. It's true that a great many states and federal organizations are garbage at properly collecting and sharing mental health data so that it does get checked, but that's not really the fault of the individual gun owner. The assumption of mental unsoundness seems particularly strange for political displays. When has a gun-rights political display turned into gun violence?